Revolution Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1938

9 N.L.R.B. 468 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of REVOLUTION COTTON MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-697.-Decided October 24, 1938
Cotton Textile Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion: propaganda
against union ; propaganda discrediting union representatives ; expressed opposi-
tion to outside labor organizations ; persuading employees to refrain from joining
one organization ; intimidation of witness during course of hearing-Company-
Dominated Union: domination of and interference with administration ; support ;
soliciting membership by supervisory employees ; disestablished, as' agency for
collective bargaining-Discrimination: charges of , not sustained.
Mr. Samuel M. Spencer, for the Board.
Brooks, McLendon d Holderness, by Mr. L. P. McLendon, and
Stern d Stern, by Mr. S. J. Stern, of Greensboro, N. C., for the re-
spondent.
Mr. C. G. Shaw, of Greensboro, N. C., and Mr. Anthony W. Smith,
of Washington, D. C., for the T. W. O. C.
Shuping cC Hampton, by Mr. C. L. Shuping, and. Mr. G. C.
of Greensboro, N. C., for the R. F. W. U.
Mr. Arnold R. Cutler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Textile Workers
Organizing Committee, herein called the T. W. O. C., the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Bennet F. Schauf-
fler, Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland),
issued its complaint, dated November 29, 1937, against Revolution
Cotton Mills Company,' Greensboro, North Carolina, herein called the
respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.-
2 Incorrectly designated in the complaint as Revolution Cotton Mills.
9 N. L. R. B., No. 42.
468
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 469
In respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act; (2) that the respondent on, or about Septem-
ber 8, 1937, discharged and refused to reinstate one of its employees,
Z. V. Myrick, because of his membership in and activities on behalf
of the T. W. 0. C.; and (3) that the respondent dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of a labor organization
known as Revolution Flannel Workers Union, herein called the
R. F. W. U., and contributed financial and other support to it.
Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were
duly served upon the respondent, upon the R. F. W. U., and upon
the T. W. 0. C. Thereafter the respondent filed an answer to the
complaint in which it denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor
practices. The respondent also filed a motion for a bill of particulars
as to the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, except those
referring to Z. V. Myrick.
Thereafter the R. F. W. U. filed with the Regional -Director a
motion to intervene, an answer to the complaint, in .which it denied
the allegations therein affecting it, a cross-complaint ,2 and a petition
for certification as the representative of the respondent's employees.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Greensboro, North
Carolina, from December 9 to 15, 1937, before J. M. Brown, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the commencement of
the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the motion of the R. F. W. U.
to intervene. The Board, the respondent, and the R. F. W. U. were
represented by counsel, and the T. W. 0. C. by one of its representa-
tives. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues . At the commencement
of the hearing the respondent renewed its motion for a bill of par-
ticulars and made various motions to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that the complaint did not allege that a labor dispute existed,
and did not allege facts to confer jurisdiction upon the Board. These
motions were denied by the Trial Examiner. At the close of the hear-
ing counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be conformed to
the proof. The motion was granted'by the Trial Examiner; Counsel
for the respondent 'renewed and made various motions to dismiss the
complaint. These motions were denied by the Trial Examiner as
iv ere, the motions of counsel for the R. F. W. U. that- the charges of
the complaint be dismissed in so far as it was affected, that judgment
be rendered on its cross-complaint, and that- the R. F. W. U. be
certified. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
2 At the hearing the respondent submitted an answer to the cross -complaint.
470 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
numerous rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner, and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On May 24, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. He accordingly recom-
mended that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in the
unfair labor practices; that it cease giving recognition to and that
it disestablish the R. F. W. U. as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative for any of its employees, and that it reinstate Z. V. Myrick
with back pay.
Thereafter the respondent and the R. F. W. U. filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and to various rulings of the Trial Examiner.
The respondent also moved that the record be amended, or that the
case be reopened, to incorporate therein certain affidavits alleged to
contain further evidence relating to Myrick's discharge and the non-
supervisory character of certain employees who were active in behalf
of the R. F. W. U., as well as additional evidence relating to such
employees. Since the respondent had ample opportunity to introduce
such evidence during the course of the hearing, the motion is denied.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on June
30, 1938, in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of
oral argument. The respondent, the T. W. O. C., and the R. F. W. U.
were represented by counsel and participated in the oral argument.
At the hearing, pursuant to permission granted by the Board, the
respondent and the R. F. W. U. submitted briefs, which the Board
has considered. The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and, except as herein noted, finds them to be without
merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of North Carolina with its office and place of business at
Greensboro, North Carolina. It is engaged in the manufacture of
cotton flannels.
The respondent purchases its principal raw material, cotton, from
firms located throughout the United States. It purchases other raw
materials and supplies from sources outside the State of North
Carolina, such as chemicals from Iowa, oil from New Jersey, and
machinery from Massachusetts. The respondent ships about 75 per
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 471
cent of its finished products to points outside the State of North
Carolina.
The value of the finished products is approximately $3,375,000 per
year. The entire output is sold through the Cone Export and Com-
mission Company, a dry-goods commission house which is controlled
by the Cone interests which control the respondent. The commis-
sion house has its offices in New, York City and Greensboro, North
Carolina.
Between June 29 and December 15, 1937, the respondent employed
an average of approximately 1,250 employees.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting
to its membership all employees of the respondent except supervisory
employees.
Revolution Flannel Workers Union is a labor organization without
any outside affiliation. It admits to membership only employees of
the respondent, exclusive of superintendents, overseers, office em-
ployees, officers, and agents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Backgrou441 of the unfair labor practices
In 1930 the United Textile Workers of America, herein called
U. T. W. A., affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, endeav-
ored to organize the employees of the respondent. It appears that
this was the occasion for considerable anti-union activity on the part
of the respondent. At that time many employees who did not give
up their membership in the U. T. W. A. were discharged and ejected
from the company houses. C. F. Phillips, the assistant superintend-
ent of the respondent, estimated that some 25 or 30 employees were
discharged and some 7 or 8 families were ejected. The respondent
did not controvert the testimony of witnesses for the Board that
these employees were so treated because of their activities on behalf
of the U. T. W. A.
In 1933 union activities were renewed in Greensboro and were on
this occasion subject to attack in the Textorian, a newspaper circu-
lated free of charge among the respondent's employees, and admit-
tedly owned and controlled by the Cone interests. In the issue of
August 25, 1933, an article appeared entitled "Open Letter from Mr.
Bernard M. Cone, Mill Executive, to His Employees." The letter
states in part:
But, taking advantage of a statement in the [Cotton Textile]
Code that workers shall have the right to organize, our old bally-
472
I NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hoo friends-or perhaps a set of new ones-have come into our
midst and are once more trying to persuade our people to join
their union and contribute to their beneficent and philanthropic
mission in life by supporting them with dues, initiation fees and
free will offerings . . . We honestly believe that the Unions are
far more arbitrary, unreasonable and dictatorial, and are far
harder taskmasters than we are, and have your real interest far
less at heart, and we feel you have nothing to gain by joining
them . . . Have you ever stopped to compare these strangers
... with the mill officials, the superintendents, the overseers .. .
Which of these groups . . . are trying to line their pockets with
your money and when hard times come and their revenue ceases
will desert you like rats leaving a sinking ship? [Italics ours.]
The conclusion is inescapable that both in 1930 and in 1933 the
acts of the respondent and its controlling interests were directed
toward destroying all organizational efforts of the employees of the
respondent by "strangers." Although these events, occurring before
the effective date of the Act, afford no basis for a charge of unfair
labor practices thereunder, they are important, however, in consider-
ing the significance of the respondent's actions in connection with its
employees renewed organizational activities.3
B. Revolution Flannel Workers Union
About the middle of April 1937, organizational activities again
-began at Greensboro. This time they were carried on by the T. W.
0. C. During the early stages it conducted a successful membership
campaign among the employees of the respondent.
The R. F. W. U. first took form on June 29, 1937. According to
the testimony of two loom fixers, James E. Smith and J. D. Hughes,
they, together with a third employee, J. A. Hill, decided on that day
to organize a union of their own on the theory that it would cost
less than a union affiliated with some national body. Hughes secured
-the use of the lodge hall from the janitor and the first meeting was
held the same evening and attended by 20 employees.
Thereupon the R. F. W. U. started a membership campaign and
succeeded in obtaining some 527 employees as members within the
short period of 2 weeks. Although it is clear that the respondent
took no part in the formation of the R. F. W. U., its open encourage-
ment of this union combined with its attacks upon the T. W. 0. C.
left no doubt in the minds of its employees that it favored the former
organization.
BJefery-DeTVitt Insulator Co v. ratwial labor Relations Board, 91 F. (2d) 134
C. C. A. 4th), cert. den ., 58 S. Ct. 55. '
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 473
Prior to the effective date of the Act, certain unions had engaged
in two organizing campaigns at the mill of the respondent. On each
of these occasions the respondent had indicated its hostility toward
unions. Nevertheless, the R. F. W. U., despite the knowledge of such
hostility, proceeded to organize without fear of reprisal. The solici-
tation of members for the-R. F. W. U. was carried on for the most
part at the mill during working hours. Seven employees,4 who were
witnesses for the respondent, took an active part in such solicitation
and circulated membership petitions throughout the mill, in many
instances in departments other than their own. Together they suc-
ceeded in signing up some 250, approximately one-third of the entire
nienibership of the R. F. W. U.
Of the employees who circulated the petitions or, in. some instances,
cards, for the R. F. W. U., in the mill, during the working hours,
none was ever reprimanded. These employees testified that the reason
they were not reprimanded was because they were careful to keep
their activity from the attention of the supervisory employees. That
such a group of employees could have wandered about the plant in
various departments, away from their duties, and during the working
hours, without the supervisory employees being aware of their activi-
ties seems improbable. The respondent's tacit acquiescence in the
use of its time and property by R. F. W. U. organizers to further the
membership 'campaign of the R. F. W. U. clearly amounted to a
contribution of support to that organization.
- The activities of J. B. Reynolds in the formation of the R. F. W. U.
calls for particular comment. Edison S. Reeves, an employee, testi-
fied that Reynolds was the head overhauler in the card room and that
Reynolds himself had so informed him. Lawrence Greene, another
employee, testified that Reynolds "had charge of the boys that were
overhauling machines," that he had three or four helping him, and
that these men took orders from him. C. F. Phillips, the assistant
superintendent of the mill, denied that Reynolds had others working
under his supervision, but then qualified the denial by saying that he
"has [others working under his supervision] whenever he goes to over-
haul a machine." Reynolds during direct examination denied that he
had anyone working under him but upon cross-examination stated that
lie had from one to four helpers. When asked what would happen
to a person whom he recommended should be discharged, Reynolds
refused to commit himself, first saying, "we don't have that kind of
people out there," and after being admonished by the Trial Examiner
to ans«*er the question, stating, "They always send me someone who
will do the work." From the evidence it is clear that Reynolds had
from one to five employees working under him, that on certain occa-
4 J. B. Reynolds , Delpus Phillips ( Delphus Phillips ), J. C. Harris, Lennie Ritter ( Lennie
Riddle ), L. C. Godfrey, L. W. Ferguson, and Merl Hartzoge
474 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sions he did exercise supervision over them, and that he did have some
power to recommend a discharge. We have in similar instances held
that such evidence supports the conclusion that such an employee must
be classed as a supervisor.
Reeves testified that on July 9, 1937, Reynolds came over to him and
asked him to sign a paper; that Reynolds said that its purpose was to
organize a union to keep the C. I. 0. out; that when Reeves stated that
he would not sign, Reynolds said, "Well, the company would rather
see your name on it, than see it off"; and that when Reeves still would
not sign it Reynolds said, "Well, if you think anything of your job you
will sign it." Reynolds admitted that he asked Reeves to sign one of
the petitions but denied making the other statements attributed to him.
However, Greene, who was present at the time of the conversation,
corroborated Reeves' testimony. We, therefore, find that Reynolds
made the statement attributed to him by Reeves.
The activities of other supervisory employees were likewise intended
to promote the success of the R. F. W. U. John Lowe, a second fore-
man in the card room, told Ernest Amos that "Mr. Cone said he would
not tell anyone to join the union or not to join, but then anything would
happen. If the mill would shut down, he would take care of the ones
that stuck to him." It is evident from the cross-examination of Amos
by counsel for the respondent that Lowe was working for the R. F.
W. U., and it is therefore apparent that in referring to "the ones that
stuck to [Cone]," he was speaking of those who joined the R. F. W. U.
It is significant that Lowe did not testify nor was this evidence re-
butted. The effect of such a warning by Lowe cannot be overempha-
sized, coming at a time when the installation of improvements in the
card room necessitated the discharge of many employees.
Wesley Vernon also related an incident of solicitation for the
R. F. W. U. by one of the respondent's supervisory employees. About
September 15, 1937, his overseer, J. B. Blackwood, met him in the
alleyway between the machines, and said, "I am not trying to attend to
your business, but it might be a good idea for you to join this union
here," meaning the R. F. W. U. When Vernon protested that he did
not have to join any union in order to keep his job, Blackwood said,
"No, I don't think that anybody would be fired for it, but there is more
than one way of choking a cat to death than butter." This testimony
regarding Blackwood, as in the case of Amos, was not rebutted. Black-
wood did not testify at the hearing.
Following the testimony of William M. Jones,5 a witness for the
Board at the hearing, as to the events of 1936, J. S. Leonard, his over-
seer, approached him on his return to work and told him that he
had "made an ass" out of himself, that he should have told the attor-
5 Also referred to in the record as Will B. Jones.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 475
neys there "was nothing to it." On the following day Leonard ques-
tioned Jones with respect to their conversation. When Jones told
Leonard, "you know what you said to me," Leonard stated that "since
my wife died I am apt to say things I ought not to." Although
Leonard testified earlier at the hearing, he was not called to rebut
this testimony. Regardless of the excuse offered by Leonard, it is
clear that his statements were calculated to intimidate the witness
against testifying at the hearing.
We have described above the relationship between the respondent
and the Textorian. On October 29, 1937, there appeared in this
newspaper an editorial, entitled "Think of Tomorrow." It reads in
part :
Reckless speculation is dangerous-everyone agrees to that;
but most of us are prone to think of speculation in terms of
money. Heedless gambling is by no means confined to_ the tak-
ing of reckless chances with money. One may by his actions
or associations with other people place himself in as great jeop-
ardy as he can by investing his last dollar in wild cat stock.
He-can harm himself just as easily by repudiating old friends
and established principles of relationship and accepting the prof-
fered advice of strangers and new theories of conduct as he can
by selling his valuable possessions and investing his all in fly by
night financial schemes . [Italics ours.] '
On November 26, 1937 , several articles attacking the Committee for
Industrial Organization appeared in the Textorian . One of the
articles, a purported speech delivered on November 9, 1937 , by a high
official of the State of Ohio relating to the steel strike situation in
that State , reads in part :
The [steel] companies advanced one argument which I could
not answer . They took the position that a written contract
would bind them, but would not bind the C. I. O. leadership
... Some of the most vicious of the C. I. O. leaders are known
Communists . . . Their philosophy is not the elevation of
American labor, but it is violence , civil war, and revolution
... There was one band of some two thousand men [C. I. 0.]
from Akron alone who attempted an armed invasion of Youngs-
town with blood in their eyes and violence on their lips.
The other article, a purported reprint of an editorial from the-Amer-
ican Wool and Cotton Reporter , entitled "Aspinook Company Will
Liquidate ," related the story of a certain cotton mill which, although
in a precarious financial position , had nevertheless continued to op-
erate until the Committee for Industrial Organization had begun an
organization drive, after which the operations of the mill were so
obstructed that the management was compelled to liquidate the mill.
476 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although couched in general terms, the "strangers" alluded to in
the first editorial quoted above appear to be the same "strangers"
to whom Cone alluded in 1933, namely, outside organizers. Pub-
lished in the, midst of the R. F. W. U. organizing campaign, the
warning not to repudiate "old friends" for the advice of "strangers"
could only have reference to the rivalry between the R. F. W. U. and
the T. W. 0. C. The other articles mentioned above clearly ex-
pressed the opposition of the respondent to the T. W. 0. C. Under
the circumstances, the free choice of employees was effectively- curbed
both by the manner in which the R. F. W. U. was fostered and the
manner in which the T. W. 0. C. was maligned.
The respondent contends that the editorials of the newspaper
reflected the personal opinions of its editor and manager, M. W.
Heiss. However, Heiss is also assistant secretary of the respondent
and in charge of personnel records. Whether Heiss as editor could
divorce himself from Heiss as supervisor over the personnel records,
it is improbable that the employees would conceive in him a dual
personality whose thoughts in one capacity were not his thoughts in
the other. To them Heiss represented the respondent, and the policy
he expressed, whether at the mill or through a news organ identified
with the mill, was that of the respondent. 'Under these circum-
stances, the article's undoubtedly served to intimidate the employees
of the respondent and amounted to support and encouragement of
the R. F. W. U.
We find that the respondent has dominated and' interfered with the
administration of the R. F. W. U., and has contributed support to
it; and that by the above acts it has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
C. The allegedly discriminatory discharge
Z. V. Myrick was discharged on September 8, 1937. He had been
employed by the respondent for about 18 years, last working as a
sweeper in the card room. Myrick had joined the T. W. 0. C. about
August 8, 1937, and was active in its affairs.
Myrick's duties necessitated his bringing waste from the card room
to the waste house, where Thomas Klegg worked. Klegg testified that
about September 1, 1937, J. S. Leonard, the foreman of the card room,
asked Klegg why Myrick and Walker, another employee, were loafing
in the waste house and stated that he understood that they were signing
employees for the T. W. 0. C. Leonard admitted asking about
Myrick's loafing. Although not specifically denying the remainder of
his alleged statement, Leonard denied asking Klegg whether Myrick
had tried to sign Klegg for the T. W. 0. C. If Leonard's alleged state-
ment was an indication of an intent to lay off both Myrick and Walker
DECIS[ONS AND ORDERS 477
because of their union activity, it was not completely carried out as it
does not appear that Walker was ever laid off or discharged. The evi-
dence shows that Leonard had on previous occasions asked Klegg about
the loafing of Myrick and Walker in the waste house.
On. September 3, 1937, E. F. Reeves gave Myrick a union paper,
which Myrick in turn gave to Paul Smith,'also asking him to join the
T. W. O. C. Smith subsequently returned for another 'copy of the
paper stating that he had given his copy to Leonard. Five days later
Myrick was discharged. Clyde Hammer, who had been "doffing cans"
in the card room, was put in Myrick's place as a sweeper. -
The respondent contends that due to the installation of new long
draft machinery the number of employees in the card room had to be
reduced and the staff reorganized. Between July 26 and November 25,
in addition to Myrick, 14 employees had been laid off in the card room
due to these improvements, 3 of the lay-offs occurring after Myrick's
discharge. All of the slips covering the terminations of employment,
which were introduced in evidence, uniformly state that the employees
were laid off due to the installation of long draft. In addition, it does
not appear that any of the 14 other employees who were laid off be-
longed to the T. W. O. C. No seniority rules were followed at the
"respondent's mill.
Even assuming that Leonard did get the copy of the union paper,
we are not satisfied from all the evidence that Myrick was discharged
because of his activities in behalf of the T. W. O. C. rather than as a
result of the reorganization of the card room following the installation
of the long draft machinery.. We will dismiss the complaint in so far
as it alleges that the respondent discriminated against Z. V. Myrick.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III
B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the administration of the R. F. W. U. and has contributed sup-
port to it. Under these circumstances, the R. F. W. U. cannot and
does not offer to the respondent's employees the free representation
for collective bargaining which is guaranteed by the Act. We shall,
therefore, order the respondent to disestablish the R. F. W. U. as the
representative of the respondent's employees for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining.
478 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee and Revolution Flannel
Workers Union are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the admin-
istration of Revolution Flannel Workers Union, and by contributing
support to said organization, has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
- 3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act. -
5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of
Z. V. Myrick, and has not thereby discouraged membership in the
Textile Workers Organizing Committee, within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10,(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor , Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent , Revolution Cotton Mills Company, and its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of - Revolution Flannel Workers Union, or the formation or
administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and
from contributing support to Revolution Flannel Workers Union
or to any other labor organization of its employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board • finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Disestablish Revolution Flannel Workers Union as a repre-
sentative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the re-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 479
spondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment , or other conditions of employment;
(b) Post immediately, and keep posted for a period of at least
thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting , notices to its
employees in conspicuous places throughout its mill stating that the
respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a)_
and (b ), and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in 2
(a) of this Order; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
And it is further ordered that the complaint , in so far as it alleges
that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be , and the same hereby is,
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MADDEN took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.